What happened to Lechmere......

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

Yes, but I would argue that reference to 'murderers" in the article, rather than "murderer", implies that they considered the crimes to be possibly gang-related (which would have to be true in Smith's case, unless she lied about being attacked by a gang of men.)

I just amended my former post when I saw what you were after, John!

[John G]

Yes, the article refers to Smith and Tabram. Wasnīt that what we were discussing; the time before Nichols was killed? And did you not write that there was no example of how the press considered the possibility of a single killer before that time? Because I think that the Pall Mall Gazette very much presents such a possibility by making this comparison.

Hi Fisherman,

Yes, but I would argue that reference to 'murderers" in the article, rather than "murderer", implies that they considered the crimes to be possibly gang-related (which would have to be true in Smith's case, unless she lied about being attacked by a gang of men.)

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

Ah, yes, of course we always have newspaper speculation! Presumably they were referring to Smith and Tabram, however, as Smith claimed to have been attacked by a gang, and Tabram was stabbed multiple times, I assume they considered the crimes gang-related. And this is obviously implied by reference to "their murderers."

Yes, the article refers to Smith and Tabram. Wasnīt that what we were discussing; the time before Nichols was killed? And did you not write that there was no example of how the press considered the possibility of a single killer before that time? Because I think that the Pall Mall Gazette very much presents such a possibility by making this comparison.

I donīt think that we can conclude that the paper spoke of gangs of murderers having perpetrated both crimes, especially since the Tabram deed was a totally quiet one. Then again, a gang WAS implicated in the Smith murder, so you may have a point.

The more pertinent matter to my mind is how the circumstances and type of victims are described as being very similar, as are the MO:s. To me, that speaks of the press coupling the deeds as quite possibly belonging to the same series.

[John G]

Technically, serial killing takes three victims - but of course, thes was not a term that had been invented at that stage.
There were some papers looking at the similarities, like the Pall Mall Gazette, writing:

It is a singular coincidence that the murder was committed during Bank Holiday night, and is almost identical with another murder which was perpetrated near the same spot on the night of the previous Bank Holiday. The victims were both what are called "unfortunates", and their murderers have up till now evaded capture.

So the inference was around, although not on any major scale. The paper wrote about "murderers", of course, but they focused on the similarities. So much so that the deeds became "almost identical", which was anything but true.

Hi Fisherman,

Ah, yes, of course we always have newspaper speculation! Presumably they were referring to Smith and Tabram, however, as Smith claimed to have been attacked by a gang, and Tabram was stabbed multiple times, I assume they considered the crimes gang-related. And this is obviously implied by reference to "their murderers."

[Fisherman]

Fisherman.
I miss none of your posts as I need a good laugh occasionly.
No you haven't answered my questions.Post 357 was a rather clumsy attempt to evade answering them. Well no not falling apart ,already in ruins.

Here is your question, as quoted exactly:

The question was simple,What evidence puts Cross in Bucks Row sooner than he claimed,and in the company of Nichols when she was alive?

Here is my answer, from post 357:

If I could place him with Nichols at the exact time she died we would not be having this - rather daft - conversation.

So what exactly is your problem, Harry? What is it you donīt understand? Oh, and when did we go from question to questions, plural?

[harry]

Fisherman.
I miss none of your posts as I need a good laugh occasionly.
No you haven't answered my questions.Post 357 was a rather clumsy attempt to evade answering them. Well no not falling apart ,already in ruins.

[Fisherman]

These articles were published after Nichols was murdered, at which point the press clearly started to speculate about a serial killer. However, there is no evidence that either the press, or the authorities, considered the serial killer possibility before Nichols was murdered.

Technically, serial killing takes three victims - but of course, thes was not a term that had been invented at that stage.
There were some papers looking at the similarities, like the Pall Mall Gazette, writing:

It is a singular coincidence that the murder was committed during Bank Holiday night, and is almost identical with another murder which was perpetrated near the same spot on the night of the previous Bank Holiday. The victims were both what are called "unfortunates", and their murderers have up till now evaded capture.

So the inference was around, although not on any major scale. The paper wrote about "murderers", of course, but they focused on the similarities. So much so that the deeds became "almost identical", which was anything but true.

[John G]

Headline for The Times on 9/1/1888 regarding Nichols' killing:

Another Murder in Whitechapel!

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/times/18880901.html

Headline for The Star on 9/1/1888:

SPECIAL EDITION.

THE WHITECHAPEL HORROR.
THE THIRD CRIME OF A MAN WHO MUST BE A MANIAC.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/star/s880901.html

Headline for the East London Advertiser, 9/1/1888:

ANOTHER WHITECHAPEL MYSTERY.
HORRIBLE MURDER IN BUCK'S ROW, WHITECHAPEL.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/east_london_advertiser/ela880901.html

Check out the Press Reports section linked to the upper left on your screen. A font of information.

Best wishes.

These articles were published after Nichols was murdered, at which point the press clearly started to speculate about a serial killer. However, there is no evidence that either the press, or the authorities, considered the serial killer possibility before Nichols was murdered.

[Fisherman]

Why were the cases compartmentalised? You have to remember, Robert, that this was a new sort of serial killer. Previous English cases, the Palmer, Mary Ann Cotton cases etc had a clear motive, profit for instance.

In a way the Ripper killings were a very new sort of ball game and they were in the dark about motive, person, next victim, everything really. I remember a police officer involved in the Yorkshire Ripper hunt, one of the last big serial killer cases before computerisation, and he reminisced that one of the floors holding files had to be reinforced there was so much paperwork! There might not have been quite so much with Jack but there would still have been reams. Enough perhaps to not see the wood for the trees. Add to that the doctors' varying opinions early in the murders as to whether the same man had killed each victim and you can see part of the difficulty.

Very true, Rosella - and it also sheds light on why there was little or no room to backtrack. So effectively, once Lechmere had slipped through the net, there was little chance that he would be targetted in retrospect by the police.

[Rosella]

el pombo

Are you asking for a reason why the cases were compartmentalized from ech other? I find that nagging as well. Why weren't the witness crossed between these cases - Schwartz taken to see Hutchinson, the witnesses from the Chapman murder crossed with the Kelly witnesses - to see if anybody recognized anybody else. The one time it is done, when the two ingenius detectives take the man to see Eddowes instead of Kelly to authenticate his credibility, is frowned upon.

Who knows why the press ran with her story the way it did? The Martha Tabram story is more interesting- two military men strolling about two prostitutes, a police encounter with a lookout, the inconceivable murder, the subsequent investigation by Polly. Nicholls murder only further reenforces the Tabram murder - madness is on the loose. Its Chapmans murder that introduces mania to the madness.

Why were the cases compartmentalised? You have to remember, Robert, that this was a new sort of serial killer. Previous English cases, the Palmer, Mary Ann Cotton cases etc had a clear motive, profit for instance.

In a way the Ripper killings were a very new sort of ball game and they were in the dark about motive, person, next victim, everything really. I remember a police officer involved in the Yorkshire Ripper hunt, one of the last big serial killer cases before computerisation, and he reminisced that one of the floors holding files had to be reinforced there was so much paperwork! There might not have been quite so much with Jack but there would still have been reams. Enough perhaps to not see the wood for the trees. Add to that the doctors' varying opinions early in the murders as to whether the same man had killed each victim and you can see part of the difficulty.

[Fisherman]

That was quick! Maybe I should stick with it in the future; forcing yourself to go short often brings out the essence in a better way.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
I thought you claimed not to read my posts completely.How come then you answer to what I write.
Nonsense,is not quite the answer I was hoping you'd give.but It is your saviour when you can't answer constructively.
The question was simple,What evidence puts Cross in Bucks Row sooner than he claimed,and in the company of Nichols when she was alive?
Unless you can answer that question,or any one else can,the theory that Cross lied,and that he murdered Nichols falls apart.
Is it important.Well if you understand the law under which he would have been tried,it is.Yes ,I understand that law,do you.

You may have missed my post 357, where your question had itīs answer, but even if I had not answered that rather silly question, the theory would not fall apart in any other place but inside your mind, Harry.

[Fisherman]

>>… until I make false claims about you. When/if I do, I will happily apologize…<<

Post 276, you wrote,

“If you, think that a wide skirt is as difficult to pull down over parted legs as a narrow one I will just leave that particular discussion.”

Since I never mentioned tight skirts and tight skirts were never part of the discussion until you introduced the subject, the above claim that I,

“think that a wide skirt is as difficult to pull down over parted legs as a narrow one”

was a “false claim” on your part.

Despite my pointing out your manufactured "claim", you’ve so far, fudged around the subject, apparently to avoid acknowledging your “false claim”.

But, heigh ho, par for the course.


Meanwhile let’s not dwell on your personal attacks and get back on topic …


Re: Newspaper quote,
>>Why? What does it add, to your mind, that is vital to the issue?<<

Since I and others have discussed the next line of that newspaper article ad nausem, aren’t you being a bit disingenuous again?


Re: people closest to the murder at the time it happened.

>> These people were NOT at the murder site … <<

Not at the murder site? Did you seriously write that?

Fact: nobody can establish whether Xmere was close to the murder site at the time the murder was committed. (What you call circumstantial evidence)

Fact: the Greens, Purkis’s and several watchmen WERE very close to the murder site at the time the murder was happening. (What the rest of us call provable evidence)

Ergo, sound, unbiased, police sense would put those people at the top of the MUST be checked out list, ahead of Xmere.


>> they were inside their houses and the vouched for each other.<<

So you’re claiming a mother or a wife or a brother, or a son never gave a false alibi for their kin in the history of crime?


>> Any killer would need around a minute - not five seconds - headway on Lechmere, at least. For five seconds to be an interesting figure, the killer would need to wait until Lechmere was five seconds away from the body.<<

I'd like to comment but, that doesn’t even make sense.

In my post 230, I wrote that there were tight skirts, but "they were worn by the upper classes", and the murder site was not indoors, ergo the dwellers of Bucks Row were not at it.

[Fisherman]

My bad!

Just one more question before I go research this by myself instead of wasting your time with the basics...

Was the police (and the newspapers) already working under the assumption that the killing of prostitutes in the east end was the work of a serial killer (or some sort of organized crime) before the Nichols murder or was the hype in the media caused by the increase in the murder rate but not assuming a direct relation between events?

The moment Tabram was killed, some little speculation started to brew in the press that there could be a connection to Smith, but it was not until Nichols died that the idea of a murder series started to take real shape.

[Fisherman]

Hereīs an idea - I will save up on space and efforts by answering tonights posts with one sentence per post only!